Michael Ramirez by Michael Ramirez

Michael Ramirez

Comments (31) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. ninety_nine_percent

    ninety_nine_percent said, over 2 years ago

    Michael, you are not being fair! The GOP has done the most damage to the constitution — they have sided with the millionaires and billionaires, not “We the people” remember the 99% issue? Maybe you are siding with the top 1% too?

  2. ARodney

    ARodney said, over 2 years ago

    Nothing currently proposed violates the constitution. It just sets the allowable weapons of mass murder at a slightly lower level.

  3. Chillbilly

    Chillbilly said, over 2 years ago

    Ha! What crap.
    .
    Anyone who’s progressive lives in daily aggravation that the president (who’s a constitutional lawyer) doesn’t challenge the Constitution enough.
    .
    Obama should be legislating by executive order until the people in Congress who were elected to legislate start doing so. That’s an intended check and balance.

  4. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, over 2 years ago

    @Chillbilly

    So you are then OK with a President that can decide what is good for you, what you can eat, what you can drink where you can live how much money you can make and how much of that you can keep? Just rule by fiat. You good with that?

    Go live in China. Or NYC.

  5. jack75287

    jack75287 said, over 2 years ago

    Ok I know I have been saying these two things till I am blue in the face but:

    1) There are more scary things then a nut with a rifle as horrible as it is to the people and families that are hurt. One being an over reaching government.
    2) Gun free zones are never safe. Only one of the mass shootings was not in a gun free zone.

  6. Nos Nevets

    Nos Nevets said, over 2 years ago

    If speech were more restricted and controlled, one life may be saved because people couldn’t lead others astray.
    If searches and seizures didn’t need warrants, we would be safer.
    If we could force people to confess, we could get more criminals off the street.
    If people couldn’t own guns legally, fewer crimninals could get hold of them.

    Why do we trade safety for freedom for the other enumerated rights, but run the 2nd amendment through different “logic” ?

  7. locoboilerguy

    locoboilerguy said, over 2 years ago

    If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom, and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that too.
    W. Somerset Maugham

  8. Kylie2112

    Kylie2112 said, over 2 years ago

    Can you still go out and buy a gun? Yes. Any gun willy-nilly? No. Your rights are still there, it’s just a bigger pain in the ass.
    -
    Who of you that were pro-voter ID are now anti-gun IDs? (Because either way, it’s a right not technically being infringed, just a limitation on what you can legally obtain).

  9. Rad-ish

    Rad-ish GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago

    Ramirez has depicted how the NRA has shot up the constitution.

  10. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, over 2 years ago

    And so you have no idea about the state of our fiances. Everyone of the ‘obligations" you think will not be paid can be paid with the monthly revenue collected by the IRS. After which there will be about 200 billion in reserve to pay for other stuff. No, not a lot but the “obligations” are taken care of.

    The rhetoric you hear from the president is just that. He is the one holding seniors and veterans hostage. It is his administrations decision to not use the monthly income to meet our obligations.

    This was the situation the last time it was used as a political football:

    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/treasury-june-tax-revenues-covered-social-security-and-veterans-benefits-more-3-times

    http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/growth-federal-spending-revenue

    So in 2012 the US took in about 252 billion dollars a month.. the threatened areas SS and Veterans totaled about 95 billion a month.

    Never is it mandatory to not pay seniors or veterans. There is enough money to do that. You must decide to not pay them. And the president is saying if he doesn’t get his way, an open line of credit – he will punish seniors and veterans. OBAMA is responsible. NO ONE else.

    http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_budget_detail_fy13bs12012n_00020130#usgs302

  11. 2011worldchamps

    2011worldchamps said, over 2 years ago

    This wouldn’t have happened if the constitution had a gun. Just saying.

  12. curtisls87

    curtisls87 said, over 2 years ago

    The definition you seek is ordnance. A SAM is ordnance while derringers, pistols, et cetera, are arms.
    This has been a part of legal definitions for a long time in with respect to this topic. This is why no one owns a SAM, or for that matter, any other ordnance, legally.

  13. wmconelly

    wmconelly said, over 2 years ago

    Right. Stop the shooting of 6 year olds in their grade school classroom and we violate the Constitution. Way to slide down the slippery slope, Mike.

  14. Uncle Joe

    Uncle Joe GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago

    Why is it that fully automatic weapons have been banned for years, but no one is crying about how not having a tommy gun violates their Constitutional rights? What Obama is proposing, slightly moves the line on what guns you can have, that’s all.

    If you need to fight government oppression, a foreign invasion or a zombie horde, you really need seem SAM’s, mortars, a ton of land mines & armored personnel carriers. If you think a Bushmaster with a 30 round clip is all that stands between you & tyranny, you’re may have a mental condition that should prohibit you from having guns.

  15. coffee_mom11

    coffee_mom11 said, over 2 years ago

    A well executed strip today — sad, but accurate. If we lose one Consitutional right (or allow it to be taken away), then we lose them ALL. Looks like we Southerners will have to be the backbone in this fight (once again).

  16. Load the rest of the comments (16).
Calvin and Hobbes 30th Anniversary